AQIM leader's 'manifesto'

[Rapid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21587055

head of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Abdel Malek Droukdel [...] criticises militants in Mali for implementing Islamic law too quickly and predict[ed] France's intervention.

Mr Droukdel warns his subordinates not to implement Islamic law too quickly. This advice, he said, was because the jihadist project in Mali is "a baby in its first days that is still crawling". The highly unusual document is written almost in the style of a chief executive officer issuing instructions to his middle management. The AQIM leader criticises his subordinates for allowing Islamists to destroy shrines they considered "idolatrous". This destruction was one of the acts which drew the attention of the outside world to northern Mali.

The criticism of subordinates in the Islamist movement by Mr Droukdel appears to indicate that he thinks some of the groups operating in northern Mali were hotheads who needed to be reigned in and adopt a more softly-softly approach if the ultimate aim of a jihadist state was to be achieved.

Mr Droukdel says the strategy should be, rather, to include local Malian activists to share both the management of the jihad and any possible blame if the West intervenes and failure ensues. "The aim of building these bridges," Mr Droukdel says, "is to make it so that our Mujahedeen are no longer isolated in society, and to integrate with the different factions, including the big tribes and main rebel movements and tribal chiefs". The aim of the manifesto is clearly jihadist. But the tone is tactical and managerial - in contrast to the passionate, extremist image sometimes attributed in the West to the Islamists. In the document Mr Droukdel strongly criticises "wrong policies" and "the extreme speed with which you applied Sharia [Islamic law]".

He writes about two major mistakes, "which I hope you will not repeat:

• Point 1: The destruction of the shrines, because on an internal front we are not strong, and there is a potential for an external intervention, and negative repercussions are expected

• Point 2: The application of religious punishment… the fact that you prevented women from going out, and prevented children from playing… is contradictory to the policy".

The tone of the document implies that a rational, long-term planning mechanism is in place. One implication of this is that while the French military may have scored impressive short term success, AQIM and its allies will almost certainly be back to try to re-implement the plan at a later date.

The unfortunate thing is that he's partially right. If they avoid too much confrontation, take the low speed high drag approach, then they can achieve a lot of their aims. We don't have the balls to fight Islamists unless they're acting like retards (the average person needs some really 'visible' shit going down before before they'll give their support for military intervention). The day they start to reign-in their retards, and actually start to take the 'softly-softly' approach, will be a bad day for all of us.

They have been achieving their goals across Europe for a while now, acting like victims of xenophobia*, and they're untouchable by mainstream politicians (who don't dare touch this subject out of fear of losing votes). This is because questioning them would make you 'Islamophobic' (a retarded term, BTW), and large numbers of our own people are protecting them under the guise of being 'progressive' (thanks to education systems where children are groomed into thinking that multiculturalism in Europe is something really awesome, despite the fact that it has epically failed).

* I'm not kidding. A French politician got absolutely smeared by the media (if you think the media is liberal in America, then come to Europe) for bringing to light the story of kids being assaulted because they were eating a croissant in public, in the day, during Rammadan. Bullshit like that actually happens, but Muslims think that facts like these shouldn't be reported because they could 'fuel anger'. No shit. I think what this world needs is a lot more anger. They know they can get away with anything as long as they avoid provoking anger, so they try to silence their critics by labelling them as racist, extremist, right wing, etc (very touchy labels in Europe because of the Nazis). This moderate politician was labelled as 'far right' by France's version of CAIR (as well as all the other bullshit organisations out there), just for daring to bring up this story.

Perhaps the only good news of late is that the so called 'far right' parties in Europe (roughly equivalent to right wingers in America, so nothing really 'extreme' about their views unless you're comparing them to other spineless European politicians) are gaining more and more votes every year, perhaps a sign that more and more people are starting to be exasperated by this bullshit.

 

[Rapid]

UPDATE: one of their scummy leaders is dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21645769

Killed by "Chadian" forces.